The grounds of appeal are based on the interpretation of the contractual arrangements and the nature of the land transfer. The appellant contends that:

1. The agreement only granted temporary possession of the land for specific purposes, such as mining, and did not constitute a transfer of permanent ownership rights (!) .

2. The contractual provisions explicitly indicated that ownership rights were contingent upon the continued validity of licenses or permits, and upon their expiry, the rights would revert to the original owner (!) .

3. Clauses restricting sale or encumbrance during the license period further support the conclusion that there was no intention to transfer permanent ownership, but rather a license-based right that is revocable upon license expiration (!) .

4. The interpretation of the contractual documents, including powers of attorney and related agreements, supports the view that ownership remains with the original owner unless a clear and unequivocal transfer is made (!) .

5. The legal position that ownership does not transfer unless explicitly stated in the agreement is not contradicted by the conduct of the parties, especially given the contextual interpretation of the contractual terms (!) .

6. The expiration of the license or permit signifies the end of any rights granted under the agreement, thereby reverting ownership to the original owner, and any attempt to claim otherwise is unfounded (!) .